Talk:Second World/Archive 1

vandalism
Someone needs to elaborate on what Nikolaj's world is ? - A Cursory glance at google and i cant work out what it is. 19.25, April 21, 2006 (GMT)


 * It was a vandal/joke that escaped notice! It's gone now. - DavidWBrooks 21:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed some more vadalism :/ Quote- "Gayness

Vandalism appeared on this page.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ararf (talk • contribs) 02:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

4th World
The comment on the 4th world is confusing. The page for 4th world says that it is a term for those nations at the bottom of the barrel of the HDI, not partway between 1st and 3rd world.


 * I remember a high school teacher telling our class (sometime in the early 1980's) that the Fourth World is the non-industrialised wealthy oil producing Middle East. Roger (talk) 10:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"Sphere of influence"
Just because China is communist does not mean it was strongly influenced by the former soviet union, nor is it now. This is becoming more apparent as those parts of the world are changing. Mikiemike (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)--


 * Perhaps, but China is still a commy joint. Anyway, that all misses the point. The terms first, second and third world were indeed apt descriptions in the Cold War but many believe they still retain their meanings even after the elimination of that hideous Soviet system. Second world means that a country lacks a universally (i.e., nationwide) high potential for wealth and it lacks universally high standard of living, owing mostly to the lack of freedom (at least economically speaking). Note that this does not mean that first world countries lack poverty. I know that these defintions are nefarious dubious and seem a bit rubbery, but we all know what they mean just like we all know what 'common-sense' means without being able to nail it down. Put it this way: you couldn't get rich in Soviet Hungary but you can sure get rich now in Hungary; people eat well in Hungary but used to stand in line for moldy bread; Hungary is now first world (congrats!). The lack of freedom and incumbent lack of opportunity for entrepreneurship still define second world still today. China is included (and always will be as a commy outfit), and so is Pakistan, Bolivia, Syria, Mexico; these are all places where rags-to-riches stories are as rare as the demegogue-turned-tinpot-dictator stories are common. Anywhere that the average family queues up for government bread is second world country. See the point?


 * If you read the text of the article, it properly deals with the questionable situation of China. I recommend removing the "dispute" tag, because I don't see what text of the article is being disputed. --JHP (talk) 03:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * China were an ally of the US against the Soviet Union. the idea that being communism automatically raise you to 2nd world, is just a joke. of course, the text has addressed it. it is still funny and show how uninformed the world was, we are very much lucky to have internet and wikipedia today, no? ;) Akinkhoo (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Politically correct does not translate to correct!
The status of First, Second and Third World countries are not based on individual bias. They are based within the people who choose to live in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd world.

One or the other are not better than the other.

I am a Native American and love, honor and cherish my ancestors.

I resent the method that our lands were removed from under our feet.

I can cite occurences when "white men" slaughtered my people. But then again, I can cite many more occurences when neighbors slaughtered my people.

I can speak of war, peace, bad times, good times, heroes and bad guys.

But DANG!

My parents hoped that I would have a better life then them and their parents hoped the same for my mom and dad.

Time is a great healer and teacher.

The Second World is about 80 years behind the First and the Third World is 100 years behind the Second.

Of course the First, Second and Third world contain no definate boundaries of civilization. --The One and Only Worldwise Dave Shaver 02:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Cambodia & Laos - Third or Second World?
If Vietnam is considered to be in the Second World then Cambodia and Laos both also need to be considered in the Second World, not the Third, as they currently are in the map.

In 1975 when Vietnam was unified under Communist rule, both Cambodia and Laos also came under Communist rule. Cambodia was in the Chinese camp until the Vietnamese invasion of 1979 when it joined the rest of Indo-China in the Soviet camp.

All three countries remain to this day under Communist rule or their successor politicians and parties, and all three were certainly under Communist rule during the Cold War post-1975, the period measured by the map, for the most part in the Soviet camp. This meets the requirements for Second World status.

The map should be edited to change Cambodia and Laos from the Third World to the Second World. 58.173.49.252 (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Economy
The last paragraph of the History section seems quite out of date - it should be added that many of former Soviet bloc countries switched to market economies (more or less). After all quite a few Central-Eastern European countries joined the European Union in 2004.


 * "The term "Second World" has largely fallen out of use because the circumstances to which it referred largely ended with the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union" - which implies that everything we talk about is in the past. But I'll see about switching some verb tenses to make it clearer. - DavidWBrooks 11:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Much of the article reads as if it was taken verbatim from a source from the 1980s, with present tense references to North Korea breaking with China and the Soviet Union, etc. --8.11.254.188 (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Information
In history, it says that the 1st world are the USA and its allies, but Japan, for example, wasn't ally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.32.99.72 (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In the context of the Cold War Japan most definitely was a US ally. Don't make the mistake of extending the scope of the meaning of the terms 1st, 2nd and 3rd Worlds too far back in history. They are constructs of the Cold war and did not exist before then. Roger (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Cuba third world?- Its a tiny Island with limited resources and support but don't the socialist policies at least create a low-second world worthy situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.69.73 (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to miss the point that the second world no longer exists as a category. When the Cold War ended and the "communist block" dissapeared, the term "second world" lost its meaning. Meanwhile the meaning of terms first and third world shiftee by losing their original political meaning but they retained their economic significance. As a consequence the former second world countries have been "reclassified" as either first or third world. Of course in many cases this categorisation is not clear cut with many countries being very close or even right on the dividing line. Roger (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet at the end of the article Russia China and Egypt are listed as second world countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.69.73 (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Russia and China were Second world - past tense - at the time of the Cold War. Cuba is now classed as Third World - present - but it used to be Second World. The Cold war is over. I don't know why Egypt is listed - It was a Non-Aligned country and at various times throughout the Cold War period maintained varying degrees of good and poor relations with both the Western powers (First World) as well as the Communist Bloc (Second World). I have no idea what is meant by "Low/High Second World" as the concept is not explained in the article. Remember that the entire concept of "Second World" only existed during the Cold War and also that the actual meaning of the terms "First World" and "Third World" changed from being based on political ideology to an economic definition at the end of the Cold War. Roger (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The word "World" is now a misnomer
I am a little confused about the use of First, Second and Third Worlds in today's vernacular. When one talks about "First World" it is now considered to be an industrialized nation with a strong economy. "Third World" has come to mean a country that is poor, economically challenged and being on the receiving end of never ending aid from the "First World".

The Second World is rarely spoken about, and has largely fallen by the wayside as political and economic alliances have changed over the years.

My point is that it is now a misnomer to keep these out-dated names, and a more correct way would be to refer to a country as Industrialized or Non-Industrialized. 76.221.237.158 (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What does your opinion have to do with the content of the article? The article explains the "second world" concept within the historical context. In case you havn't noticed, WP is full of articles about outdated misnomers. Notability is not temporary. Roger (talk) 11:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

China
China was part of the non-aligned movement making it a Third wolrd country however it was also an ally of the United States during the Cold War so it shouldn't be second world but 1st or 3rd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.77.121 (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yugoslavia
Yu was not soviet allied! It was a soviet enemy actually! Map should be redoneHammer of Habsburg (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It was nevertheles a communist state. Roger (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Communist or not is not the issue here, map clearly states "the Soviet Union and its allies" - in red, and "Non-aligned and neutral countries" in green. Yugoslavia was founder and member of Non-aligned movement and therefore the map is inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.52.235.234 (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yugoslavia considered itself and was widely seen as one of the leaders of the Third World during the Cold War!!! Third World cooperation and self-awareness was mostly developed by Tito of Yugoslavia, Nasser of Egypt, Nehru of India, Sukarno of Indonesia and Nkrumah of Ghana!! Tito always resented Soviet power. To classify Yugoslavia as a red Second World country is analogous to classifying dolphins as fish. Please this is Wikipedia! 85.139.94.38 (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yugoslavia was communist but never a USSR ally. Alternatively we would move all the countries with capitalist systems which weren't US allies to the First World Category. Like Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Morocco, Burma and Indonesia among many others. Or move countries with planned economies without formal ties to the USSR to the Second World, like Angola or Ethiopia. How ridiculous and meaningless would that be? The "third world" designation never meant underdevelopment, it meant non-alignment with either the USA or USSR and their economic and military spheres of influence (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/third%20world). With time since most non-aligned countries were poor and underdeveloped, it acquired that meaning for uninformed or little informed people. Wikipedia is not Joe's blog. Accuracy and historical meaning must matter. 85.139.94.38 (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Modern uses
I have a question. Can the term "second world" be used like first world and third world are nowadays? I mean, can "2nd world country" refer to a Newly industrialized country, or an advanced developing country? (2nd world countries would mean in between 1st & 3rd world, like in a transition stage)--Fernirm (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The term second world can and often is used in various ways. As the Cold War is over the original meaning is obsolete. But it might be better to use other terms. For example the World Bank spits countries into four categories, High income, upper middle, lower middle, and low income.

Originally the terms were Free World, Soviet Block, and Third World. The Third World was the first to receive a number. This was because the First World included nations that were aligned with the United States, the Second World included nations aligned with the Soviet Union, and the Third World nations were called the non-aligned nations.

It is sort of like Generation X and Y groups that are bit dull and have no real important characteristics to serve as the basis of a name, so they are simply given a letter or a number. "They've given you a number and taken way your name." This quote is from theme song of Secret Agent Man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davisrich1 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Former Second World countries are now what?
Are the countries that were liberated from the various socialist states considered first world now? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.147.116 (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Some are first and some are third, depending on their socioeconomic status - Estonia, Poland, Russia, are clearly First World, while some of the "Stans" might be classified as Third World. The dividing line in the Socioeconomic classification is not very sharp, thus there are many borderline cases. The socioeconomically defined First and Third World model is actually not very useful. Roger (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

alternate interpretation
There is an alternate interpretation,  that the first world is the europe/mediterranean region,  the second world is america,  and the third world is everything else. The people who think this way, are thinking of the traditional "old world" vs "new world" paradigm,  rather than the cold war division. I think that this interpretation is mistaken or wrong, but neverless, it is out there.Eregli bob (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

"See Also: Mexico"??
Mexico has always been third world, under the original 'unaligned' definition and in the contemporary context. Vandalism? Air (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Move request
The further reading links go to articles which have the very definitions the actual article warned readers not to get confused about. Please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.137.53 (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Somebody please move this page to Second World, or either change the article references to world, uncapitalized. —Cantus… &#9742;   05:17, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't Slovenia be part of the firt world,it was involved in the social side of things, included on the list shown at the bottom of Paragraph 1?

Current usage - possible error
In the final paragraph, the current version of the article concludes that first, second, and third world nations have changed from the original political interpretation to the economic interpretation. It cites https://books.google.com/books?id=vbu2gis26C0C&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=second+world+countries+communist#v=onepage&q=second%20world%20countries%20communist&f=false for this, but the actual primary material seems to say that the terminology changed for first world and third world but not second world nations. Please see page 44 and notice the difference in 'Period of existence'. First and third world continue to current day, second-world ends with the end of the Cold War.

Requesting independent feedback on this before I make a change, this is a charged topic. C HAIRBOY (☎) 16:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible Error
Why does this article act as if socialist and communist mean the same thing, china is COMMUNIST not socialist.

http://www.differencebetween.net/business/difference-between-socialism-and-communism-2/

137.28.226.25 (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Error
I was looking at the world map, and I saw that Namibia is shown as an independent country. However, it did not actually get its independence until 1990. Unfortunately, I am not all too familiar with editing files, so I will need some help here. Thanks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)